The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy (2024)

Allan G. Johnson's The Gender Knot: Unraveling our Patriarchal Legacy, is a mixed bag. I'll start with the good, but first: the obvious. It's a book about the patriarchy written by a white man, and I am another white man writing a review of his work. Fun! His identity aside, Johnson does a good job of defining patriarchy* and privilege and highlights these phenomena as structural attributes of our society that need to change. And hey, a man can offer useful insights on what it feels like to have de facto privilege and power, and what to do about it. Patriarchy won't go away unless men are participating in the fight. And perhaps a man's observations might be a good starting point for other men who need to hear the message.

This is a good book for consciousness raising, and I'm glad I read it for that reason. One cannot help but analyze one's interactions more closely: Who am I paying attention to? How do I respond differently to women than I do to men? How would I react if the exact same thing were said/done by a man/woman? These were already filters on my daily thought, but Johnson provides many good examples and situations to consider. (There are some mentions of queer issues as well, but the book focuses on the binary categorization of men/women.)

In Johnson's reckoning, the source of our patriarchal system is control and fear (primarily, fear of losing said control). This actually makes a lot of sense as an explanatory mechanism, but it comes at the end of a long and awkward attempt by Johnson to deny any essential differences between the sexes that might have contributed to this predicament. In a desire to make men and women equal in all respects (rather than simply equally deserving of respect), he casts aside any considerations of, say, testosterone or reproductive roles. This leads him to the neutral values of control and fear, but one has to wonder why men's expressions of control and fear have so differentially shaped society. It's not a real explanation of how patriarchy came to be, and patriarchy's origin is treated as something of a historical accident, even though he says "matriarchy... as far as we know, has never existed." At the same time, Johnson regularly points to some non-existent golden age in which society used to be non-patriarchal, citing archaeological discoveries of goddess figures - as if those artefacts were enough to establish a culture perfectly equal in regards to the sexes.

Johnson regularly brings up other thinkers or positions on various subjects and quickly dismisses them. He has a tendency to identify a single, contrived counter-example and consequently disregard an entire field of thought. Some opposing positions, especially those of the "Men's Rights" movement, were indeed risible, but overall his dismissals made me suspicious of his logic. I was encouraged to apply the same scrutiny to his positions. There's a lot of speculation, and long sections of text read simply as opinion piece. He also suffers from being highly repetitious (or rather, I suffer from him being highly repetitious), and vast stretches feel like copy/pasted regurgitations of the same points.

The book ends nicely with a lot of good and genuinely helpful pieces of advice on how to improve society (such as showing our discomfort with tasteless humor, countering sexist talk, raising questions about representation, and generally placing "the stubborn ounces of our weight" in opposition to patriarchy), but these were all the small changes and grace notes he had previously said would never be enough to overturn a system in need of overhauling. There's no advice for doing away with capitalism or rugged individualism (much time is spent decrying those in particular), and very little in the way of acknowledgement of how much things have been improving. The book was first written in 1997, but I read a third edition released in 2014. Allan Johnson passed away at the end of last year, but I hope he would be encouraged to see the fruits of the Me Too movement, even while lamenting the election of a blatant misogynist over someone who should have been our first woman president. The fight for gender equality continues, and continue it must, but I might search for another book to recommend someone jumping into the fray.

*Patriarchy: "A society is patriarchal to the degree that it promotes male privilege by being male dominated, male identified, and male centered. It is also organized around an obsession with control and involves as one of its key aspects the oppression of women."
Opression: "A system of social inequality through which one group is positioned to dominate and benefit from the exploitation and subordination of another."

I was a little skeptical at first when I saw that we were reading a book about patriarchy written by a man (a white man, to say the least! Come on, Multicultural Ed class! Get out of the system!). After reading it, though, I think that Johnson actually brought a lot of his experiences as a man to bear in ways that showed how patriarchy operates as a system, not as just individuals who need to feel guilty and be re-educated. His primary point is that both men and women find themselves in a social system of patriarchy that they didn't create, which is also easy to dismiss because it seems natural--and therefore is mostly invisible--to us. This system privileges men by making them the standard vantage point for human nature while women are others, makes what men say more important than what women say/more likely to be listened to, and has lead to the widespread notion that women who stay at home aren't actually "working" despite the enormous quantity of work that they do simply because they aren't receiving any monetary compensation for it. On the other hand, the patriarchal system also traps men into a never-ending spiral of fear and control: they want to control those around them to feel safer, but can never achieve a stable, enduring control, which leads them to fear that drives them further towards using violence in order to maintain control. His arguments are especially relevant now when it's perceived that women and men are equal and that feminists are just whining and complaining now, or even that the shoe is on the other foot and men are being victimized now (something that I was ambivalent about before reading the book. To back this up, for example, 2/3 of the world's work is done by women, while women earn 10% of the world's wages and own 1% of its property!) Johnson says that this whole phenomenon is rooted in the fact that liberal feminism focused on individual behavior change, but not systems change, and has now somewhat petered out. He says that if we look closely, though, we can still see the many ways in which both women and men are suffering under patriarchy: men are expected to cut themselves off from their mothers and what's considered female (including emotions and expressing them, except for anger), and are locked in the perpetual cycle of fear and control. Women are expected to be continually propping up men's egos, still in charge of most to all of the domestic work (and when men do some, they're "doing their wives a favor"), and the highest cause of injury for women is abuse by a partner/intimate, more than sexual violence, car accidents, and mugging combined in some states.

Johnson's arguments are made and illustrated well (even if it does seem that he feels obsessed with having to defend himself against joining with the "men's rights" movement, which he says is basically blaming women for the consequences of patriarchy for men rather than looking to the system itself). A lot of the things that he mentioned about male privilege I hadn't thought about before: being able to go out alone at night without feeling afraid, dominating conversations more and cutting women off, and a bunch of really interesting language analysis (we call men "puss*es" if they're acting cowardly, insulting them by saying that their female, and when they're acting brave, we say they "have balls"... but there's no equivalent phrase for females acting bravely).

I feel like he makes his arguments in a careful and sensitive way, and encourages both women and men, even though they participate in it in different ways, to take responsibility for their part in patriarchy (even if it's just benefitting from it without realizing it), while also realizing that this doesn't have to be a cause for paralyzing guilt and shame. Most helpfully, I think, in an active sense, he talks about the "paths of least resistance" that patriarchy creates--laughing to go along with everyone else when a sexist joke is told, for example. Although our individual actions may not change the world in a way that we can visibly observe, by choosing to go on the "paths of greater resistance"--visibly not laughing at said joke, or saying that it isn't funny--we can change the system ever so slightly by not only showing our refusal to collude, but also making it easier for others not to do so as well.

This took a while for me to get through, but I'm glad I did. It is an eye-opening, awareness-inducing book, and has made me interested in reading more feminist literature.

It was hard to accept that a man could write such a good book about feminism, but now that I've read it twice, it makes sense that a man could understand and explain issues such as sexism, oppression, and male domination. His ideas apply to white privilege as well as male privilege. This was the first and best explanation for that connection that I had ever encountered. I especially appreciated his familiarity with the work of Marilyn French, author of Beyond Power.

This guy gets it!

I finished this a couple of months ago, but for some reason I now feel compelled to actually write something about it.

It's interesting, for sure.

But there's this vague implication that as long as our society is based on control and power, it will always be a patriarchy, and this notion makes me uncomfortable. Uncomfortable in the sense that this idea strikes me as buying into patriarchy, a little bit. (I mean, I guess everyone does buy into the patriarchy at least a little bit, and that's basically why it still exists. This is also a major and important point in this book that I wouldn't dispute. But....)

And it's not that I necessarily disagree that a differently-structured society might be a better place for everyone. But....

This book also deals in a lot of unsubstantiated generalities. Again, I don't necessarily think that his claims are wrong. It's just that the writing doesn't feel very rigorous. Some specifics and data wouldn't be amiss.

It's not bad. It just makes me stop and go "but..." sometimes. Which isn't inherently a bad quality in a book, by any means - but....

I think I have more reading to do.

This is good for an introduction, although it has some annoying features.

Firstly, there is too much (for my taste) emphasis on polemical engagement with the MRA movement. Given that MRA has no solid theoretical basis (which shows splendidly in Johnson's presentation), spending pages upon pages on engaging with them might seem like a straw-man to people who do not buy into MRA, but nevertheless buy into patriarchy, or are ambivalent towards feminism.

Secondly, certain issues raised in the book require more rigorous examination that could be offered in such a short space. Conjectures on the origins of patriarchy, especially when coupled with speculations about belief systems of paleolithic societies are not credible, unless supported by extensive evidence, which is not forthcoming in this volume.

The good points about this volume are the clear identification of patriarchy as a social phenomenon, and an attempt to explain the complex relationship between a social system and individuals participating therein. The appendix containing an extensive bibliography is also very useful.

The best book on feminism for men that I have ever read. Johnson's depth of understanding and clear prose are wonderful, but the GK might not be the easiest introduction to the topic for the beginner (bell hook's Feminism is for Everybody might be better for that). Johnson's elucidation of patriarchy as a system and the responsibility of individual men within that system is particularly valuable. A truly wonderful book.

Very interesting ideas on patriarchy. This book changed the way I viewed a lot of things in our society.

Everyone should read this book. I’m impressed by how a white male American - ie the top of the privilege pyramid - was able to articulately break down and explain gender inequality and patriarchy.

Invaluable for its vocabulary, arguments, continuing effectiveness in responding to Jungian men's movements, and interaction with feminist writers who are often under-read. This is a short book that points to a large library, and as such, does not say much more than it should. My few complaints have to do with sections of chapters 3, 4, and 8. I would have liked to see a more direct analysis of the (often uncritical) assumption that what is "natural" is a good indicator of what is "moral." But chapters 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 9 are very good. The appendices are thorough.

Recommended especially for men and women who are interested in, but perhaps not yet committed to, feminism and the intersection of justice and gender.

this is the clearest book I've read on gender. It is explained sociologically and encompasses everything, everything that we are dealing with right now. This book gave me the ability to really talk to people who knock feminism as if though there is not relevance right now for feminist thought. What this book made me realize is that those dismissive comments come from a very calculated place that most people don't even realize is outside of them.

Eye-opening, life-changing

This book gave me a lot of information to chew on and think over. I've been kind of aware of gender issues in the past. I've had classes on it and the like. I suppose this was just another reminder.

Before I get into my personal opinion on the book I want to get the technical out of the way.

Clearly and well written. There was a lot of repetition, sometimes to the point that I thought he must be copy and pasting... I don't really like that, but it seems to be common in informational books, particularly those addressing issues. They want to make sure you remember the point of the book, the terms and make for a strong foundation. But when I'm already on their side and I already get it, it gets annoying. It's like being told over and over by a parent the same thing.

From what I understood Johnson is a professor, at least that's how he came off in his writing. I'm glad to see that it's a man writing about this topic. As a sociologist, he related many aspects, like oppression to colored people.

After finishing the book I was trying to think of how my actions and involvement have been. This might sound horrible, but this really doesn't apply to me personally on a daily level. Most of the examples of abuse and male privilege I've seen are on TV or happening to someone else, that's not to say that I have not helped these people. And it's not really "I", but my family.

I have a weird family in that we're close and get along really well.

I do not know who the head of my family is. If I had to choose anyone, I would say my mother, but my mom and dad have always seemed to function together. My family is really close and I've always worked for family. If this book isn't somewhat outdated after fifteen years, then I've been incredibly lucky.

I probably did suffer neglect in school, I had a lot of social anxiety and I've never been a normal female. I even detached myself from that image and I still don't like it in the wider social context, but that was because of the outside. That was because of media and school. My mom has also struggled some what that "image of woman." We're not the nurturing sympathetic types. I know Johnson wasn't particularly fond of some of Jung's theories, I'm not particularly dedicated to his more metaphysical theories, but I think he was before his time (and partly a product of it as well). I love the Jung types, they have saved me from social torture.

I think it's kind of strange that Johnson basically goes out of his way to say, "we know in real life people are not like the stereotypes." But then he seems to value the "feminine" qualities to the "masculine" ones as if they are evil. But then he also seems to say that it's because the masculine qualities of control and dominating have been taking out of proportion. There are some parts I understand he means, but he puts a lot in this book and there are times I was kind of confused... He makes good points about being humbly and classy, but by the end of the book I felt like I was reading it as a male. I felt kind of defensive, BUT I don't necessarily associate nurturing, caring, interpersonal with female. Why would I when it doesn't describe me or my mom or long term friends? I know guys who are very nurturing, caring and who want to help people. One's like a saint, he hates money and just wants to go out and help people. His tastes are kind of unmanly and he has a lot of female friends, but he's heterosexual or I guess we'd have to call guys like this metrosexual, which kinds of seems dated anymore.

I read books kind of on this subject before and I have had classes, so I don't know if that's kind of skewed my intake of this book as well. I've never been fond of the USA's Super Man on Steroids culture, because it feels like I'm always fighting it just in the way I am as a person or rather as a female. Because of the internet I've kind of had the freedom to run around being assumed male and I tend to have male characters in games. There is DEFINITELY a way people treat females, even on the internet (maybe even the internet more, because they think they can "get away with it") and I didn't like that, I noticed before any gender studies. I suppose I've really hated my femaleness, not my emotions and all that, I actually hate the appearance of my body. It's not a bad body, it does what it should and all, but I don't like it when it tells people all about me before they even start talking to me (though in some cases people thought I was a punk or lesbian- I'm not either, but I suppose it's better than them wondering why I didn't freak when I "broke a nail"). Though the exception to that is when I got to a computer store, game or computer section of a store. I like playing dumb at first- anyone could do that though...

I don't know where this puts me on the feminist scale. I'm not really "feminine" and nurturing and such. I'm a nerd. I don't put up with guy's BS, especially if they're my age, Gen Y or younger. I know there are some old dogs you can't teach new tricks (that kind of comes up in the book), but when it's people my age I feel like they are my problem. I see the problems with patriarchy and some with capitalism. I don't see why we couldn't go to a mixed system like Germany has.

This book made me want to look into other "issues" since he brought them up a lot. I have friends who are black, they are probably the most hardworking people I've met, especially the women I've know. I could not imagine being around someone who had a really hard working and good mom saying they didn't want to be like her or respect her just because she's a women. I would call them a sick individual and not associate with them anymore. Especially when the mom is the only parent and doing everything she can for her kids. Anyone (excluding the "typical adolescent" [and some old dogs]) who disrespects their parents or parent who did everything they could to make his/her life better doesn't deserve the time of day.

Allan Johnson navigates the treacherous waters of gender politics in our culture with skill and sensitivity in "The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy." Johnson's premise -- that the "patriarchy" is not so much about benefiting all men at the expense of all women as it is about a culture of control -- is mind-expanding and crucial if we are to move forward as a society, and as a species, toward a sustainable, joyful way of living together on this planet.

As Johnson points out, men and women's lives are intertwined. The male-centered mindset and the tendency to thoughtlessly cede numerous privileges to people on the basis of gender (as well, I might add, as race, education, sexual orientation and wealth) are actually the tip of the iceberg. Looking below the surface, Johnson pulls up for our perusal the slimy, dripping, rusted underpinnings of a system gone awry -- and with it not only relations between the sexes but also the economy and the ecology of our planet.

The current backlash against feminism reflects a lack of the understanding that Johnson offers. It's true that men are privileged at the expense of women, nearly worldwide. It is also true that some wealthy white women are privileged at the expense of men of color, or men without wealth. Women's anger about the injustice and violence they and their mothers and grandmothers have suffered sometimes wounds. Men's anger about the intrinsic emptiness the "patriarchy" leaves in them feeds more violence and bitterness.

Johnson carefully pulls apart the unappealing yet vital facts and separates them from assumptions and fallacious reasoning so that the reader can see actual cause and effect. In these pages could be the healing of the rift between the "men's movement" and the "women's movement." What we need now is a human movement that recognizes the harsh facts of our legacy, and lays out a vision for a different future. Johnson is most tentative, and rightly so, in his analysis of past cultures and their gender-related qualities. At times his theories seem unsupported by other research. But more significantly, Johnson's book falters when it comes to prescribing the antidotes. He sees the first steps of the journey, but does not attempt to lay out a road ahead. Perhaps this is the job of fiction-writers. I hope so, because it is vital work that many SF writers are already engaged in.

This courageous, insightful book is a must-read for anyone who flinches at the word "feminism" or "patriarchy," for anyone working for peace and justice, for anyone who deeply loves someone who is of another gender. This means you!

Extremely thoughtful and engaging look at patriarchy, its formation, and its (hopeful) deconstruction.
Recommendations aren’t excellent, only in that they mostly consider how those with privilege can dismantle power systems, and does not create recommendations for how minority populations can work to end patriarchy in safe ways. This could however, be considered a strength, if he is only attempting to speak to those in power about recognizing their privilege and using it for change.

A broad and solid intro to patriarchy. We are using it in the Doctor of Ministry course that I'm co-teaching. I appreciate Johnson's understanding of patriarchy as a system and the practical advice on how to unravel.

good primer for boys. :)

The most influential book I've read about feminism and gender, read during my senior year of high school. All the more important because it was written by a man.

From an enlightened male point of view in support of feminism, the author breaks down the system of patriarchy in even ways men may respond to. A must read for any modern woman and her modern men!

Solid introduction to the patriarchy and sexism. Wish I had more time to study it, but it's my friend's textbook so I kinda need to give it back.

Another book that I was forced to read for a Gender Studies class. It made a lot of great points, but wasn't very helpful on solutions to problems. Almost felt like circular, redundant reading.

Essential reading for the 21st century feminist.

I was introduced to this book by Roger Green (ND State U.) and Robert Gordon (Auburn U.), who conducted a couple of “Allies” and “Advocates” workshops at UCSB, leading eventually to the formation of a staff/faculty group, “Men Advocating for Gender Equity,” now in the process of organizing and planning its activities, which will include offering educational workshops for other groups of UCSB staff and faculty.

https://web.ece.ucsb.edu/~parhami/men...

Let me begin by listing the book’s table of contents in brief.

Part I: What Is This Thing Called Patriarchy? 1. Where Are We? (p. 3); 2. Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us (p. 27); 3. Why Patriarchy? (p. 51); 4. Ideology, Myth, and Magic: Femininity, Masculinity, and “Gender Roles” (p. 78); 5. Feminists and Feminism (p. 99).

Part II: Sustaining Illusions, Barriers to Change. 6. Thinking about Patriarchy: War, Sex, and Work (p. 133); 7. What Patriarchy? (p. 154); 8. It Must Be Women (p. 178).

Part III: Unraveling the Patriarchal Legacy. 9. Shame, Guilt, and Responsibility (p. 207); 10. Unraveling the Gender Knot (p. 224).

Appendix: Resources for Unraveling the Knot (p. 224); Notes (p. 259); Index (p. 283).

At first glance, a book on patriarchy, white privilege, and male privilege written by a white man may appear suspect. However, after reading the book, most reviewers I sampled on Amazon.com agreed that Johnson has done a decent job of defining/exposing the problems. One reviewer characterized it as “The best book on feminism for men”!

The gist of the book and all of its key top-level ideas appear in Chapter 1 and elaborated upon in subsequent chapters. So, in the following, I present 12 take-aways from the book’s Chapter 1, a list which I compiled to share at a Zoom meeting of our staff/faculty group in July 2020.

01. Women & men know that there’s inequity, but we don’t know what to do with that knowledge w/o tightening the knot. [p. 5]

02. Privilege is any unearned advantage available to members of a social category that’s systematically denied to others. [p. 5]

03. We are trapped inside a patriarchal legacy (promoting male privilege), a topic to which the entire Chapter 2 is devoted. [p. 5]

04. Four attributes of patriarchy: Male domination; Male identification; Male centeredness; Obsession with control [pp. 6-15]

05. Women’s lack of control over their bodies, sexuality, marriage/divorce, education, and profession is a form of slavery [p. 15]

06. Patriarchy encourages men to accept male privilege and perpetuate women’s oppression, if only through silence. [p. 17]

07. Hot-button issues, such as abortion, p*rnography, violence, can prevent us from focusing on the nature of patriarchy. [p. 18]

08. We go about our daily lives, without an ongoing awareness of the deep structures that define prevailing social terms. [p. 19]

09. Sexuality is an example of what society dictates, with many of us not questioning the fixed notions or digging deeper. [p. 20]

10. We should distinguish between the positions of women and men as groups and their experiences as individuals. [p. 22]

11. Patriarchies are male-dominated, even though most men may not feel dominant, especially in relation to other men. [p. 22]

12. Men do not have to feel cruel or malevolent toward women in order to participate in, and benefit from, patriarchy. [p. 25]

Here are elaborations on take-away point #04, which isn’t as self-evident as the other items:
- Male domination: Positions of political, economic, legal, religious, and educational authority are generally reserved for men.
- Male identification: Core cultural ideas about what is good, desirable, preferable, or normal are tied to men and masculinity.
- Male centeredness: Focus of attention in news reports, movie subjects, and all else is primarily on men and what they do.
- Obsession with control: Men, seen as cool and collected, control women and anyone else who might threaten their privilege.

Let me end my review of this influential and highly-recommended book with a couple of quotes from the book.

On page 33, we read: “If a society is oppressive, then people who grow up and live in it will tend to accept, identify with, and participate in it as ‘normal’ and unremarkable life. … When privilege and oppression are woven into the fabric of everyday life, we don’t need to go out of our way to be overtly oppressive for a system of privilege to produce oppressive consequences, for, as Edmund Burke tells us, evil requires only that good people do nothing.”

And on page 50, we read: “Ultimately, the choice is about empowering ourselves to take our share of responsibility for the patriarchal legacy that we’ve all inherited.”

比较系统地理解了patriarchy。
所谓父权or男权社会，是这样的社会——通过男性主导，男性认同，男性中心而促进男性权益的社会，这不是指某个或某几个男性参与的社会，而是男女都参与，都可能对此负责的社会。
Male Dominance：体现在权威位置——政治、经济、法律、宗教、教育、军事、家庭内——大体上由男性占据 ；
Male Identification：核心文化理念有关什么是好的、理想的等界定，普遍与男性或阳刚的特征相联系，似乎女性只有表现出去性别化（偏男性）的品质会被认可，男性表现出女性化的品质会被贬低；
Male Centeredness：关注的焦点主要是男性以及他们的所作所为。
The Obsession with Control：是社会与个人生活组织的核心价值观，也是男权社会的基本要素：男性通过控制女性和其他可能威胁他们的男性而维持特权。工业前男权时代的主要目标是控制土地以及女性的繁殖潜力，在市场经济时代，男性的特权取决于对资本的控制或是挣钱能力。

A book on patriarchy written by a man... there were times when reading this I felt like he didn't totally get it, and that he wasn't separating out the value add-ons he got from also being white and higher-than-working class and heterosexual. Johnson touches on these things, but then at other points of the book I found myself doing repeated facepalms when he just completely missed how his own viewpoint was furthering those disparities. The book was assigned reading for a graduate level Sociology of Gender class, and it was OK for that (I'm not familiar enough with the other books on the market to judge if this is the "best in class" or not). Johnson (and the professor of the class) seemed to assume that, if the reader/student didn't already, they would by the end of the book/class self-identify as a feminist. I don't - I dislike the implied gender binary in the term "feminist" so avoid the label personally and refer to myself as an "egalitarianist" instead. In my opinion, this book could have done more to more fully embrace egalitarianism and could have encouraged more self-reflecting behaviors. Perhaps a later edition will do so. I also feel it would have benefited from the inclusion of more diverse voices - excerpts from other lived experiences of "doing gender" differently - instead of just one highly educated white guy's opinion on the matter. Since that is the perspective that "the patriarchy" in the US has given the spotlight for so darn long, my perspective is that it's not really "unraveling" that issue to have an authoritative manifesto come exclusively from that voice.

An interesting view of the past state of affairs in the area of the American academic feminism, that is, if you can get past the first chapter full of unsourced generalizations. The author refutes the unfounded hypotheses about the male environment and male upbringing in the past of several prominent researchers of that period - late 80ies early 90ies and laments the lack of understanding and acceptance of the idea of the 'patriarchy' from the establishment. The book itself is a detailed document of the evolution of the author's beliefs over the years but most of its contents applies exclusively to the US environment, and exclusively to the past; it ends by an impassonate plea to the readers to become 'anti-patriarchy' activists in their daily life, and gives the pointers to the radical feminist materials and the behavioral guidelines for implementing the changes the author yearns for. Today, 20 years later we can see that a good half of those ideas would seem like no brainers to us, but that another half had resulted in a drastic deterioration of the communal relationships, censorship and belligerence on the part of every affected actor in the society. OVerall - a typical result of a change though by a pure academic, assuming the best of all people, and being disappointed when people behave like basic cliqueish hom*o. sap. sap. they are.

The author had better listen to H. Arendt's warning - nobody is partucularly prone to implemenrting equality, not even if they were oppressed in the past, unless they are edicated to understand what inequalities mean, how they arise and the negative consequences they would lead to.

The content here is fine, although a bit outdated, in the sense that I feel that a lot of this will be rather obvious and familiar to most people who have spent any time at all on the internet. Patriarchy is the problem, not individuals; small acts can have big consequences; men are central in our culture. Gotcha. My bigger problem is that Johnson is just not that good a writer. Impassioned, yeah, but also pretty dry, academic and just humourless. For someone who keeps repeating how long he has been involved with this, he doesn't seem to have reached any level of ironic distance - it's 245 pages of Sturm und Drang. This can be fine, but what makes it irksome is that he keeps hammering on finding alternatives, but never shows what makes these alternatives fun, sexy, interesting, joyful, fulfilling or whimsical. He just says they will be, without showing that they are.

I read The Gender Knot as a requirement for a Doctor of Ministry class. I did not expect to be too impressed with the book, but the more I read, the harder it was to put down. Allan Johnson defines patriarchy as a system in which we’re all swimming, and through which we have developed our world views. He provides lots of insight into his understanding of this patriarchal system, including metaphors that can be helpful in talking to friends and family about gender based privileges. By the end, he also provides helpful ways to begin unraveling the gender know and creating a more just society. I absolutely recommend this book for men and women alike. My only critique is that the information within the chapters can be a little repetitive - as if they were originally written as individual essays, not chapters that necessarily build on top of one another.

Important but dated review of the impact of a patriarchal society on women. Johnson sometimes spends a chapter on a notion clearly and impactfully described in two pages, but otherwise this is seminal writing to those who care about gender equity in our society. First published in the late nineties, only an update to 2005 has so far been offered. I would enjoy another tome that brought together events and data from the past 15 years to light.

Best construct of gender I've read- and woo-hoo written by a white male. I saw this scrotom toter speak in october of 2006 at a university supported social justice symposium in Duluth. His live presentation is so similar to what he conveys in his text. Radically honest look at his own white life and our society.